Forum:Hi, folks! Guess what? Wikia is censoring us.

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 707 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

It appears that Wikia has begun censoring us, by adding a "content warning" to the entire wiki, stating the following:

Content Warning

The wiki at uncyclopedia.wikia.com may contain objectionable content such as depictions of violence, sexual suggestion, dark humor parody, or other materials not intended for a general audience.

In general, Wikia does not review nor do we endorse the content of this or any wiki. For more information about our policies, please visit Wikia's Terms of Use.

Fun stuff. It is only shown once, and it goes away if you click the "I understand and I wish to continue" button. HOWEVER: before the button is clicked, all the content on that page is completely hidden, and you cannot read it until you click the button. Also, the notice has broken twice for me now, rendering every page unreadable unless I turn off JavaScript in my browser. What the fuck, Wikia? Does Wikia want to chase off ALL of our readers and contributors, now? I don't see disclaimers at cracked.com, the Onion, or even (God help us) Encyclopedia Dramatica. So I ask you again: What The Fuck, Wikia? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, May 31 '12 11:51 (UTC)

Perhaps this is because I use a fairly obsolete computer and browser, but at first I could not see the content warning. Instead, I just saw blank pages. I normally use monobook, so I tried the uncyclopedia skin and it was still all blank. Only when I went to that oasis skin did the warning appear and allow me to click it. Everybody should contact wikia and let them know how you feel about being censored. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 13:59, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Dittoes. I decided to surf elsewhere and wait for someone else to fix the "bug" several times before thinking about disabling Javascript. I still have not seen the warning and am not inclined to switch to another skin to see it. Compared to those other websites, we are pretty good at ensuring that NSFW or shock material is in the service of actual humor; and most of the Internet's pre-pubescent cohort who might be offended are editing here anyway and probably created the content in question. SpıkeѦ14:08 31-May-12

Yeah, well, we're PWNED by Wikia, while none of the other sites Bizzeebeever mentioned are owned by an external webhost. Ah, the perils of living under a megacorporation. --Scofield & Dudes 15:27, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

This is another grim reminder that Uncyclopedia really needs to find alternative hosting and get away from this bonkers, manipulative and outright incompetent company...--Sycamore(Talk) 16:25, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that Sycaless. I wouldn't say that this is censorship but it makes me madder than a Jew who lost a quarter. Also, that nigger-skinned parody of WikiAnswers is getting lynched by the cocksucking heebs at Wikia due to complaints about "abusive content." I guess the queermos at Wikia need their eyes checked because me and my fat retarded kids come to this faggot-ridden site all the time and we never see anything offensive. If they do this to us because of complaints (which may or may not be legitimate), then my suggestion is that we write a bunch of letters and e-mails lauding Uncyclopedia for its appropriateness and lack of offensive slurs for gooks and Hajis. If we write a number of uncomplaints equal or greater to the number of complaints then they will undo this. Problem solved. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK]17:22 May 31 2012

What is with so many users here having terrible computers...especially admins? You can get a reasonably functionl tablet or laptop for 100 euros these days. Or maybe its a question of sentimentality? I have the idea that some users connect their computer to the telephone line, eat cat food for dinner and steal books from the library cause they cant afford their over due fines :S --ShabiDOO 00:47, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizing other wikis will not solve this problem. In fact, if the vandalism is traced back to our site it will likely cause more problems. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 16:04, May 31, 2012 (UTC)

Feedback sent to Wikia

"There are conceptual and implementation problems with the disclaimer added to Uncyclopedia today.

"Conceptually, the nature of a wiki means any viewer is liable to encounter contributions he might find objectionable. The text of the disclaimer placed on Uncyclopedia makes it seem as though our site is primarily not-safe-for-work, racially insensitive, or otherwise written to shock. In fact, while Uncyclopedians do venture into all of the above, the users work hard to ensure that such ventures are in service to quality humor and not gratuitous.

"The implementation, blanking the text of all pages without explanation until the user clicks on an acknowledgement that is only visible in the "New Wikia Look," which on this PC is claimed not to be the default, makes it look as though the site is broken. To proceed normally, I had to: Disable JavaScript, visit the Uncyclopedia Forum to understand what had changed, go into my preferences (which have been redesigned), experiment with all the other skins until finding the one that would display the new question, click on the acknowledgement, and then reverse all the above steps.

"For both reasons, this change actively discourages people from reading our work--and dissuaded me for an hour from continuing to do work."

No letter-writing campaigns, please! If you want to convey to them that it is more than just one person, you might point them to this Forum. Don't just send them the exact words I did. SpıkeѦ22:21 31-May-12

Exchange of large texts that the recipient is too uninformed to know are copy-pastes, and generally doesn't bother to read, is the stuff of electoral politics. I give Wikia the benefit of the doubt that we are dealing with engineers who know what is going on. They have gotten the message; if you wish to give them the additional fact that the opinion is more widespread than they might realize, tell them that, don't scoop up some text and throw it at them. SpıkeѦ12:34 2-Jun-12

Wikia replies

Got the following from Jen Burton, VP of Community Support: SpıkeѦ20:27 4-Jun-12

Thanks for getting in touch with us about the Content Warning interstitial. First, the implementation you saw last week was obviously buggy and should not have been turned on (and I apologize for the hour you lost trying to get past it - that shouldn't have happened). We've turned it off, fixed the bugs, and I expect to turn the interstitial back on later today. We'll be turning the interstitial on not just for Uncyc, but for other wikis whose content is considered adult or potentially objectionable.

While we (as in the Wikia staff) understand and appreciate the sarcasm and humor on Uncyclopedia, we get a significant number of complaints from people who run across pages on Uncyc and don't understand the intent behind the site. Invariably, these people are upset. Our goal with the Content Warning is to alert these people that the content may not be what they're expecting and to give them the choice of whether to continue forward or not.

The design of the interstitial is such that logged in users will only see it once for each wiki that has the variable turned on they visit. For example, the first time you, as a logged in user, accepts the interstitial, we'll save that preference and won't show it again as long as you're logged in to Wikia. Anonymous users/visitors will see the interstitial once every 24 hours per wiki they visit.

We do feel this is a good compromise and is similar to behavior seen on other large networks of user generated content (some use an interstitial like this and others use an age gate to prevent all content from being shown by people under a certain age).

I warned you...!

Dude, quit worrying about this stuff. Wikia isn't gonna ditch us. What it may do is annoy us with lame stuff such as this forum's topic to the point where we decide to move to another host, but that's it. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM23:52, 31 May 2012

We shall do the same thing to Wikia as we did to Freenode! Freenode bitched and we told them to GTFO, banned them and started international spam month. NOW LET'S GET UPLOADING THOSE VIDEOS! →A(Ruins) 14:13, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Why do you so want to spit in the faces of those who help us? Freenode provides a free service to projects such as ours and you're downright rude instead of grateful; do you simply not want that service? 1234~17:31, 1 June 2012

I think Aimsplode is taking this way too far. He wants to ruin our relationships with other websites just because they do one bad thing. Where is the love?--- TALKWhat's it like to be a heretic? 17:59, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

That's funny of you two to talk now since you used to be the ones who murdered anyone opposed to your views. Why did we start International Spam Month? Because Freenode bitched. Now Wikia is bitching at us, what are we going to do? Wikia never listens to us anyway. We need something radical, whether that be the letter-writing campaign, massive support on Facebook, or some other form of action that would draw attention to it.

Also, I haven't even seen that message after I clicked it off on Firefox two days ago, and now I'm on Chrome and I've never seen it yet. Did they remove it? →A(Ruins) 18:38, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. We did not start SPAM MONTH "because Freenode bitched". SPAM MONTH is an annual tradition started in May 2011. Freenode complaining happened as a result of SPAM MONTH 2012. Also, it is not true that "Wikia never listens to us anyway." If we send them emails they will listen (as demonstrated recently when they turned on new patrolling features for us). -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 20:19, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Our discussions might also have guided Wikia to install "Enable Go-Search" (that is, restore the previous behavior of the search bar) in the preferences. SpıkeѦ12:34 2-Jun-12

It's not just us

I've been doing some research and other wikis are actually being shut down. There was some sort of porn wiki/fan fake wiki that was just removed by Wikia. --SirXamRalcothe Mediocre 22:01, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Next thing you know, wikia will start sensoring google and microsoft. LETS STOP THIS MONSTER BEFORE IT GROWS A SEVENTH HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --ShabiDOO 22:43, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

You spelled censoring wrong even though it's in the title.....→A(Ruins) 22:59, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that warning is actually bad: who turns away when they see "Mature content: view at your discretion"? What I find to be a weird move is this: Wikia requested that the traffic stats be hidden. Why? They could at least have informed us. Mattsnow 22:32, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Not clear from that whether it means Wikia is concealing information or has simply not paid to have it counted for them. Repeating for people who don't reread an entire forum to see what changed, I got a response from Wikia, which didn't satisfy me but was quite responsive. See above. SpıkeѦ23:22 4-Jun-12

Can we get all the admins to collaborate on an email to Wikia and ask why the hell they're doing this stuff? Maybe they'll actually give us a meaningful response this time around, not just a "Wikia does this stuff because we have to, and that's none of your business. And if it is, we're going to make it hard as shit to find." →A(Ruins) 02:01, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Let's make lot's of pointless wikis like optjtj09gh80g wiki in order to spam their servers.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 02:15, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

How about no. They will not react kindly to that. Instead, how about we go on with with our daily duties on Uncyclopedia?--- TALKWhat's it like to be a heretic? 02:21, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is a parody/joke site, so it would be reasonable for one to find some of it obscene or redundant. I don't agree with Wikia censoring some of its wikis though. -- UserTalkContributions 02:29, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki's with porno, toilet humor, and disturbing stuff (Creepypasta Wiki) would be understandable. Other than that I agree with Tasmania.--- TALKWhat's it like to be a heretic? 02:38, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

A MESSAGE TO WIKIA

We're trying to solve a little problem, and linking wikia to this forum will show that the community cares. However, this kind of childish, defiant attitude will lead nowhere. Please stop posting that kind of stuff, Mr-ex. Mattsnow 14:20, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Mr-Ex has a point, Mattsnow.

Wikia's mom spends her lonely hours eating out other women, and it's time she came out of the closet. →A(Ruins) 15:29, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

As much as I hate hate hats, it's worth noting at this point that it has been Wikia's practice to go out of their way to kill the community since the moment they took over the site. Well, ok, maybe not. What they HAVE done is all they could do to gain more and more control over the site (there was the whole movement of the site to wikia.com to give them our traffic, which led to over half the users on the site to leave at that time... which would be ironic that they now feel the need to add a warning to the site to keep the poor innocent Wikians from accidentally venturing on to our site by mistake and finding offensive content, except that it's perfectly in line with the whole dominatrix motif they've had going on here). Anything less than leaving is inviting them to continue to water down the content until there is no reason whatsoever to come here. Thus it has been written, thus it shall be done. Farham.--<<>> 18:42, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

An actual screenshot

Here is a screenshot of the warning. It prevents the user from seeing any page before accepting, and, it also does not allow any user to log in/create account until accepted. This is bad. →A(Ruins) 17:15, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

This appeared to me as well. It brings to mind a quote: Any public committee man who tries to pack the moral cards in the interest of his own notions is guilty of corruption and impertinence. I didn't know wikia was a comittee! BTW, that is a joke. We all know wikia is just Morgoth in disguise. - ENTER CITADELT)alkC)untributionsB)an 17:39, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Scheiße! This is a farce in the making (if not complete). --Gamma287☭Tetяis? 21:08, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Where is the petition to have this removed? Lord fucking knows i'll sign it at the nearest opportunity!

The title is an example of typical Encyclopedia Dramatica content. Wikia seems to think we are no better than them, and I bet they searched some obscure forum to find either a shock image or a line like that before censoring us. WE NEED MOAR PORN! I HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO PORNTUBE TO FAP! I LIKE IT HERE!

The warning does not censor the website itself, though. It's just a button that you have to click to get into the site. It imposes no restrictions, and it now seems to show up in the default Uncyclopedia New Monaco skin. While I agree that it may be driving away new users, the simple fact is that...THERE AREN'T ANY! We have only a few thousand active accounts out of over 5 million, and as far as I can tell, the number has only been going down for years. Before trying to petition, we need to do something to get more people to "sign" it. In other words, some sort of advertising would probably be good.

Unfortunately, I don't think the whole "falling off teh internets" gag is really a joke anymore. We have been losing users so steadily for so long, we may actually be in danger of that! Yes, we may have the most articles of any Wikia-hosted site, but damn, my face almost turned purple when I saw that number. By comparison, the RUNESCAPE wiki has over 1 million unique page views PER DAY, as per the site monitor on their homepage.

Yes, this is a rant, but I definitely feel the warning, however benign, is scaring away the few new users that may actually see this (now, unfortunately, somewhat obscure) site!

Case in point: I first encountered this site in December 2006, when we had school laptops in class while we were working on a book report for Night by Elie Wiesel. I googled holocaust, scrolled through WAAAY more pages than I probably should have, and ended up in the Holocaust tycoon article. I had no idea what I was actually looking at, being my little sixth grade self, I thought I was looking at a legitimate website. So, my book report ended up being made up of orange jews, paragraphs on 1990s 8-bit simulation games, and the words "fuck" and "shit", which I back then thought were nonsense (my parents are christians, I didn't know any swear words).

Fastforward to February 2012: I'm 15 years old, in 10th grade, and have a little time to kill. I'm playing Runescape, downloading music, and generally letting my mind wander. I find a copy of Night in my bookshelf, and I immediately remember that book report (which I of course failed). Just for fun, I google Uncyclopedia, and find that it is a JOKE site (EXTREME FACEPALM!). Of course, I find the Wikia URL and begin browsing. It became my go-to ROTFL LMFAO satire site, and then, sometime in early March, I find the Chicago article. I half browse, half read through the article (loved the chrome ball gag, I know enough about Chicago IRL to know that many people think it's ugly and bringing down property values, so of course, when you guys described it as "the most fantastical thing you will ever see in Chicago", I laughed my fucking ass off), and I get to the "Suburbs" section. My eye immediately falls upon the Milwaukee red link, I thought that since Milwaukee was such a large metropolis, it should get AT LEAST it's own article, maybe even it's own category.

I immediately create an account as soon as that thought crosses my mind, another Uncyclopedian is born! Not only do I create a relatively extensive article, with formatting help from some noob-friendly admins, but I even make my own Grue and an article about the software I use to make it, plus a small misinforming "FAQ" about the file type it by default saves to. By then, i'm addicted. Unfortunately, over 4 million members were lost in the time it took me to discover the awesomeness that is Uncyclopedia (I only visit ED for the awesome shockporn, honest). I have a feeling most of you, except the early admins, can say the same. If we don't do something fast, the member count may only be a few hundred legacy admins and devotee addicts like you and me. We will lose all relevance and literally fall off the internet, and in some ways already have.

The site is dying, and we need to save it! I may not be an admin, I am just a regular noob, and not a particularly good one at that! I have had several blocks and warnings, repeat vandalism, and all of my articles have been ICU'd, if not outright deleted, at some time or another. Where was I going with this? Oh yeah, the point is, no matter what your rank in the hierarchy, nonmember/infinibanned to admin, we can save this site together! Spam the rest of teh internets, get news coverage for particularly offensive articles like ED does, expand to other markets, let Uncyc post to your Facebook wall and invite your friends! Whatever you feel like you have to do, this site needs to be put back on track, and FAST! Join me, and whoever else has a vested interest in this site, and we can do this!

If we can't remove the 'advisory sticker', would there be a way that the front page can be greyed out (i.e. just showing the headlines etc) with un-clickable links until a user agrees to tick the box, yeah or nay? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 05:59, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

But seriously

A new combatant has entered the fray.

I was holding back, waiting to see what Wikia's response would be to our other users' emails. When I saw their imbecilic replies, I was not pleased. I loaded up the word cannon and fired it at them. I'm sure I've done us no services by being so impassioned, but you can read my hilariously anguished missive to them here. (P.S. Yes, I actually sent this to them as an email. Unfortunately, the email form does not allow for links or formatting.) ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Jun 6 '12 9:30 (UTC)

Please nominate this for the front page! Mattsnow 15:43, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I just got this great idea

So... Now that we have the warning that there 'may' be some shocking images and other similar, and the readers have been now warned, why won't we just continue like this? MOAR shocking images, maybe some 'videos'... MUAHAHAHAHA! Cat the Colourful(Feed me!)Zzz11:07, 6June, 2012(UTC)

Yes or no

Maybe if we take a step back for a second and not take 100% of this 100% personally we might get somewhere. This website does have some articles that are pretty wild. I wouldn't want young kids reading some of this stuff. I'm not sure having a message is really such a big deal, I simply disagree with the way the message is written. Listing all the things that could offend someone blows everything all out of proportion. Something along the lines of "viewer discretion is advised" is enough.

Another way to deal with this constructively, is to agree to put up a clear banner at the top of all pages that contain graphic pictures, provocative text, or super offensive material and police ourselves. If we try to even come a little way towards them, it might help. I have a feeling that if we keep sending these messages, both angry or eloquently argued, nothing will change. --ShabiDOO 11:26, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Words of Wisdom, Shab, but we already have VFD. If we find any REALLY shocking images on some article, the article can be put into VFD. It could be a new VFD-rule! Shocking images, BAM! Cat the Colourful(Feed me!)Zzz11:29, 6June, 2012(UTC)

I want all my kids reading this stuff-it prepares them better for real life in America these days then school does anyway. →A(Ruins) 12:44, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the place where kids get molested by coaches, teachers, staffers and the like. →A(Ruins) 13:45, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

To Shabidoo's point, young kids shouldn't be on the Internet unsupervised, anyway. The Internet is like real life, only worse. This place? This is like the alley behind the bowling alley where all the spastic teen-aged employees hang out, smoking cigarettes and cracking lame jokes.

I wouldn't be averse to a "viewer discretion is advised" label. I'd be perfectly happy to have something like the site notice, i.e., something centered and displayed prominently. But Wikia never sought our input before they decided to obscure the entire site behind a "gateway". Take us out to dinner, before you put a sheet over our faces and bang us, for Pete's sake. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Jun 6 '12 12:57 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go for that. I mean, I guess we should have something- we have a lot of material that internet noobs could take seriously, since they can't see the difference between us and the so-called "experts" at Wikipedia. Like the articles where we encourage gang rape, huffing, escaping jail, gang raping Cat, mass-murder, drug use and triple crimeicide. Maybe just a little notice, or, better yet, allow US, yes, US, to add a note to all articles and only those articles that have offensive content. →A(Ruins) 13:45, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If only we had some way to mark pages as, say, not safe for work or somesuch. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:54, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well whaddyaknow, that seems to fit the bill. Now can someone show this to Wikia? →A(Ruins) 15:59, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I had the not safe for work sign at the back of my mind...but honestly, look at the sign. The sign itself is not safe for work. Well...my boss would find it funny, but in an Anglo Saxon work enviroment, I think most bosses would raise their eyebrows if they saw a neon blinking hot woman silhouette. We could have a simple, clear, non-ugly template at the top of pages that are bound to shock or offed, but ones that should STILL BE KEPT. If we implement this, does anyone think that wikia will take away the general warning? --ShabiDOO 16:59, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I deserve my own header for my profound thoughts, so I made one

Us doing anything to "deal with this" is, in my view, a hell of a lot of work to combat a problem that is going to have very limited consequences for the user base. If anyone goes to log onto Uncyclopedia as I'm sure everyone does after a hard day of work, a content notice is hardly going to prompt them to say "Why I'm absolutely livid, I was incorrectly informed that this was the family friendly wiki that produced such non-offensive articles as Nigger Dogshit Sandwiches and Anal Sex. I must write a letter to government to have this filth banned and I shall tell all my friends not to visit". Anyone who has this reaction to the site is going to have it anyway, content notices or not, and people who aren't will just click the button and ignore it.

The notice is an effort by Wikia to diminish the number of emails they receive stating "The filth on Uncyclopedia, a wiki that you endorse by hosting is an outrage <insert threat of legal action here>" This in my view does not censor the wiki any more than putting a rating on a film censors it, it simply warns that the wiki has some objectionable content on it and that wikia doesn't support that point of view. You do not see similar messages on sites like Cracked or The Onion because these sites do not also host material intended specifically for young children and Modusoperandi, wikis like: this or this I would guess cater mostly to younger children and fans of the same. For parents who allow their children to visit such wikis to then see their child freely browse onto a wiki which on that day has featured People Who Like to Fuck Naked or Sideboob to name but a few, this is a shock and undoubtedly has lead to many emails to wikia complaining. These parents can now be warned regarding some of our content before they unknowingly allowing their child to view potentially offensive/inappropriate material.

It also gives wikia a response to those who browse Uncyclopedia, find offensive material and immediately reach for the Staff Contact button to complain about it. They can say "We don't endorse what has offended you and you were warned before viewing it". It makes perfect sense to me, and while as an administrator of this wiki I dislike the potential for people to be put off the wiki, ultimately I don't think it will impact upon us to a tremendous extent. Wikia have likely been taking a considerable amount of flak from people who have taken a dislike our content, in fact I know they have because I have been asked by Sannse on several occasions to remove such material. In my opinion this change will not result in anybody who actually wants to visit the wiki visiting and, once the technical problems are fixed, should lessen the number of angry emails being sent to wikia and encourage people to contact the site administrators rather than Wikia staff. In fact I would encourage wikia to add a link to the active admins page for precisely that reason.

TL;DR version: I'm a little tea pot, short and stout, here is my handle, here is my spout. When I get all steamed up, hear me shout: "Tip me over and pour me out!" --ChiefjusticeXBox 18:38, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of it, but I'd like to point out this: About half of our userbase are younger (unfortunately) people around 12. Take this into account. If you were 12, you someone gave you this notice, you'd be frightened, just like 12yr olds get frightened when their computer gives them a message like "Windows Needs Your Prompt", or their parents find their porn stash. Or even worse, they don';t have porn yet and/or been taught that porn and crude humor is "naughty". This warning repulses them from reading any articles, since they get shocked and don't want to continue, for fear of their parents finding out, etc. The point here is that it will repulse people of all ages who don't /want/ to see this. THEN AGAIN- I see no content warning on Wikipedia, which has various pictures of lewd sexual act (NSFW), which is more than we have here. Same rules go, you wouldn't want your kid seeing boobies? How about letting your kid see pegging (NSFW), anilingus (NSFW), and many other images on a public-perceived family-friendly -Pedia? I don't think so. →A(Ruins)19:36, 6 June 2012 19:36, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia use is something it would be down to any parent to monitor for themselves, same goes for a child's access to any encyclopaedia which, as part of its work includes subjects about human sexual biology or behaviour. In terms of Wikipedia a similar notice does exist and is displayed when a person visits the "Contact Us" page. A notice explaining that "Wikipedia has no editorial board. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff." The only difference being that Wikipedia does not display this upon a user visiting the site, wikia's decision to do this here has already been explained. As an aside articles on wikipedia are also written in a factual manner and will not make crude references/jokes to "Anal_licking anilingus" unless the user specifically navigates to that page or a page closely related to that topic. This is in stark contrast to here where the words penis, vagina, Modusoperandi, nigger, fag and Roman Dog Bird, can appear in practically any article. My only point is that ultimately there are worse things they could have done, putting a screen in where you have to click a button before you can look at as much obscene content as you like is hardly declaring a "content inappropriate for our children" witch hunt. --ChiefjusticeXBox 20:41, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

When I was twelve, an "Adult Mature Site Boobies Cussing Warning Warning" warning wouldn't have frightened me. That's because there was no worldwide web at that time. Plus, there was a war on. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 21:26, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

@Chief I don't entirely agree with the idea that from Wikia's standpoint argument - Wikia make profits from our traffic and we are under no obligation to serve their other interests on server farm.--Sycamore(Talk) 21:40, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Chief: your arguments are laudably well-though-out. Unfortunately, I only know what I would have done if I had come across such a warning two years ago or so, when I came here to read Flying Spaghetti Monster and Kitten Huffing: I would never have clicked the "Ok" button. The content warning is, in my opinion, a ridiculous over-reaction. What is wrong with a banner that says "This content intended for mature audiences only"?

If you stick your ten-year-old in front of a TV with a cable box and let him watch, oh, I don't know, something on the Cartoon Network, and you come back 30 minutes later to find him staring, in fascinated horror, at the Spice Channel (they still have that, right?) do you send an angry letter to your cable company saying "SUCH FILTH! I DEMAND REDRESS!" If so, you're an idiot, because it's your fault for not supervising them, or at least using the TV's parental control feature. I think the analogy applies here. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Jun 7 '12 1:36 (UTC)

Sycamore: As a business partner, we have no hard duty to Wikia. But we have a mutual interest in keeping the relationship going (unless you have a server farm in your back garden that we could use). Me, I do hope Wikia can profit from its relationship with us, as it would otherwise not have any motivation to continue to give us the space and field threats of boycott and lawsuit from gadflies who act outraged at what Little Johnny viewed on our site. Hiring people to respond courteously to those gadflies--and to our gadflies who have messaged them--does cost money, which they will not spend without hope of recouping it. SpıkeѦ01:52 7-Jun-12

I think they should put that there instead of a boring, plain-text notice, just to fit in with the rest of the shit that goes on. Respect the Userspace! --SirCuteDialgaOnTheRadio[CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 00:59, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Darn I was just going to start a forum about a new Uncyc-sister project called 'UnRecipes'. Fuck this shit first they tell me there is shocking images and then they steal my fucking ideas! RAAAWRH! Cat the Colourful(Feed me!)Zzz18:30, 7June, 2012(UTC)

Its not the message its the content

Chief's message makes sense. However, I disagree that a message like that wont turn away some readers. If the message said "readers discretion is advised" then it would be fair game. But if you write:

articles may contain descriptions of violence,
offensive material
etc... giving a detailed list of what an article may even have, we not only lose the aspect of surpise (that we aren't an incyclopedia but a parody) and posible readers who don't want to read stupid things about violence and dirty sex.

As I said, the content warning is overly descriptive and should be FAR BETTER WORDED. --ShabiDOO 18:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should be two pages long and possibly include all the laws that Uncyc brokes. At least. But not any spoilers then. Cat the Colourful(Feed me!)Zzz18:33, 7June, 2012(UTC)

Totally with you, Shabidoo. They almost sound like they've disowned us. Even NewsCorp didn't disown IGN when they wrote against SOPA, so WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS TO US, WIKIA!!!! --Scofield & Dudes 18:36, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the warning is annoying as fuck, and completely gratuitous. And while you logged in users only have to dismiss it once, random visitors get reminded once a day that "this wiki is really gross, you should really be reading something else. Wouldn't you rather go someplace else?". ~Chair.RodrigoS. P."Spuddy"Burek 13:47, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, a sane person. About Wikia, the admins are too poor or don't care enough to switch us. But we would appreciate a rant, since Wikia will undoubtedly be looking at this forum. →A(Ruins)14:03, 8 June 2012

Instead of a rant, some (hopefully) constructive criticism. I would not have much against a content disclaimer if it was not too intrusive (and definitely not page blocking). And perhaps some template on potentially offensive pages.

Also people complaining about being offended is not necessarily a bad thing. It can point to crappy, offensive, but not funny articles, which can then be improved (or just deleted if they are beyond redemption); such complaints should be forwarded to some active editor so the article in question can be reviewed. And Uncyclopedia does have a clear policy against cyberbullying so any personal attacks and such should be removed too. Having taken care of that, the rest of the complaints can be dismissed as coming from humourless people that take themselves too seriously.

Oh, btw, the Italian Uncyclopedia, Nonciclopedia, which besides complaints gets the occasional lawsuit threat too (and in my opinion their humour can even be somewhat more offensive than the one on the English Uncyc.), has no page blocking warning, in spite of still being owned by Wikia. It does have disclaimer templates on potentially offensive pages, including one cordially reminding easily offended readers that they can just close the window. ~Chair.RodrigoS. P."Spuddy"Burek 15:55, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Not all of our pages are that offensive, and we patrol pages for this crap ourselves. Why should they be intervening? --SirCuteDialgaOnTheRadio[CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 16:00, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

YES! Altough Bzbvr already send a long message to Wikia, I believe Wikia didn't read it completely... I THINK. So Wikia really needs to be reminded how much it sucks. Cat the Colourful(Feed me!)Zzz16:11, 8June, 2012(UTC)

I believe she is talking about the actual CONTENT WARNING, not our NSFW template. And yes, I would vote for turning it pink, sparkly, translucent, and covered in kitten vomit. Or for it to be, y'know, disappeared altogether. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Jun 9 '12 1:35 (UTC)

I'd vote for it to be black on black. Speaking of which, you know how redlinks always show through {{c}}? I know how to fix that. --SirCuteDialgaOnTheRadio[CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 01:50, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Moar ponies Because what this site needs is more blatant, gratuitous copyright violation.--<<>> 02:08, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand it.

I mean, Encyclopaedia Dramatica is three times as inappropriate as us, but they don't have to put up an NSFW warning! Why, oh why does life have to be so cruel?! ~[ths]UotM 16:50, 06/10/2012

...they're not hosted by Wikia. That's the long and the short of it. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Jun 10 '12 16:52 (UTC)

I'm going to post this pic everytime I see ED mentioned in the forums. It's a nice pic of my Pa'. *sniff*, I miss Pa'. Went out for smokes and never came back, he did. Plus, since headers don't appear to be length-limited, I can just ramble on about whatever comes to mind. Which is nice. The rambling, I mean...

"Hola, me llamo ED. Oí que usted me buscaba."

@Dan Don't worry about it, life is cruel sometimes. But my dad gave me some good advice regarding that. He said "Son, when the going gets tough," and then he fell down a flight of stairs and died. He never did finish that thought... --КıявуТαгкСойтяıвs2012-06-11T02:47

We're straying off topic

Is there any chance we can get rid of Wikia? →A(Ruins)22:20, 10 June 2012

@Aimsplode Well, I don't know. I mean, we used to be hosted by somepony else, right? So couldn't we just go back to them and forget all about Wikia? --КıявуТαгкСойтяıвs2012-06-11T02:49

Hey, Kirb's right! We were originally hosted by someone else! Why don't we go back to them? ~[ths]UotM 17:41, 06/11/2012

Because that person sold us to Wikia. Not that we can't leave Wikia (though they'll probably keep their own copy of this wiki running), but we need to find a different, reliable host first and preferably gain ownership of a new, flashy domain name, e.g. uncyclopedia.edu. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM02:02, 12 June 2012

So that's the dick that created us, than sold us off for shit? I might have to nab him myself.

But yeah. We need a new domain on a reliable webhost. Anyone have any ideas? →A(Ruins)02:20, 12 June 2012

Non-serious suggestion: Occupy another Wiki until Wikia removes the notice. (The notice makes the whole joke of looking like Wikipedia irrelevant. If you can't send a link to an unsuspecting fool who gets a nasty surprise when citing our cite in his paper, there's no point to it all.)--<<>> 10:53, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

@Aimsplode: Probably not going to happen. A decent dedicated server is at least $90-$100 / month. Olipro has claimed he would foot the bill if a serious movement to give the finger to Wikia ever started. But on top of that, we need folks to administer the server, and almost no one here has that level of competence; I've gotten quotes as high as $1500/month for server administration. Unless somebody here has serious scratch, or is willing and able to administer our server(s) for free, we're stuck with those bastards. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Jun 12 '12 11:44 (UTC)

Sent them another message

"Thanks for your answer,

As benevolent writers/clowns, we like it when we know our work entertains a sizable readership, and it would certainly be a lot easier to measure the impact the banner has on overall traffic if we had access to the stats. Unfortunately, Quantcast prohibits us from seeing it "Under Owner request". We could certainly measure the impact the banner has if we could see those numbers, and it could quell some drama. So why are the traffic stats hidden?

Answer

Hi Matt -

Wikia made the decision several months ago to close access to our data on Quantcast to the public. If one of the admins for Uncyclopedia woud like access, please have them reach out to me and I'll get access set up for them.

I've been tracking pageviews for Uncyc since last week; there was a 2% drop in pageviews week over week. However, we saw the same decline network-wide so I'm not inclined to attribute that decline to the content warning - I'm more inclined to attribute it to summer vacations and seasonality. I will continue to monitor traffic.

++++++

Hope this answers your question (also, in the 9 days since the original reply, traffic has remained in line with the rest of the network - people are partying and hanging out while the rest of us are working).

Thanks,

Jen Burton
VP, Community Support

Sadly, this sounds like another dodge to me. "Pageviews" tells us nothing about the people who never click the "I understand and wish to continue" button, or who leave after 20 seconds and never come back, or, let's say, any of the actual site statistics that quantcast keeps and which Wikia has requested be obscured. I'm about done with Wikia. They can go to Hell. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Jun 22 '12 19:25 (UTC)

CHANGING THE TEXT OF THE WARNING ALREADY

Indeed.

Would someone try to write an alternative text that will be fair warning enough without making the website seem like some cheesy highschool project? Anyone? --ShabiDOO 11:59, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

"Warning: This site will actually teach your kid how to read instead of looking at child porn on 4chan." Mattsnow 14:54, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

"Warning: This site is the truthful alternative to Wikipedia, the wiki of lies. Historical events such as the Holocaust happened exactly as described here. Come here and learn." Mattsnow 14:59, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

"uncyclopedia.wikia.com, although hosted by Wikia, contains objectionable content which Wikia does not review or endorse. Our Terms of Use further describe our policies, but the violence, sexual suggestion and dark humor parody here are surely more attractive." EpicAwesomeness(talk) 17:23, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

"Warning: This website contains some content that Wikia thinks may not be safe for work. If you choose to enter this website anyway, please do so at your own risk! Uncyclopedia will not be held responsible for any loss of sanity that may come from looking at this site." How's that? ~[ths]UotM 17:35, 06/11/2012

Warning: Your average comedian talks about sex and swears a lot more than what you'll read on this site. Mattsnow 00:58, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning: This website is less offensive than the evening news. BE WARNED! Mattsnow 00:58, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

I beginning to think the messages should be rotated! --ShabiDOO 02:45, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning: Facebook has content more offensive than this site. DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE?!? Mattsnow 04:29, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning: This site may make you laugh, and is therefore not recommended for your depressing life. Mattsnow 04:29, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning, your loins may unexpectantly start to burn when reading uncyclopedian articles, users should have clean undergarments and a towel near-by before entering! --ShabiDOO 04:46, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning: This site contains humor, and laughing can cause strokes. Mattsnow 04:49, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

While a lot of those are funny, I think BB's is really enough...no???????? --ShabiDOO 17:57, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd put it in a box and encourage people to read HTBFANJS if they think something's inappropriate for certain audiences. --SirCuteDialgaOnTheRadio[CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 18:32, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Warning: This site contains forums that make mountains out of molehills. mAttlobster.(hello) 11:59, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning, uncyclopedia is always finding ways to have less and less users and contributors. Their ultimate goal of annihilation is well on track. Good luck! --ShabiDOO 16:59, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Warning: This site is full of LIES. Yes, dark and offensive LIES. If you want TRUTHS, please leave this this site immediatly because we LIE AT STUFF!

Warning: The website you're about to enter doesn't care that the Internet is serious business. Mattsnow 20:23, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Shall we start sending them messages...asking them to bring the warning language down a few levels???

Im going to send them a message with beavers warning example. I encourage you all to send your own personalised messages of the like, if you feel compeled to do so. Of course, its totally voluntary. I have no plans to sabotage your username, or articles or projects in any way if you decide not to send a message. I promise I will never have your featured articles completely wiped out of the history of uncyclopedia. So then, do as you like, send them a message, or don't, I wont retaliate, I pormise. ShabiDOO 00:56, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Screw it

We're losing people already. Our last saving throw is this: "WARNING: Wikia does not understand humor. Hence, this crappy warning page is plastered on this website. Just click "continue"." |Si PlebiusDato' (Sir)Joeang Man on FireCUN|ICKill| 03:32, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

How about "WARNING: Wikia, "yo mamma", and your boss may not approve of this website. If you are under the age of 12, please look elsewhere for homework help. If you are at least 13 years old, not easily offended, not looking for politically correct content, and looking for a wide variety of parody and satire, you have come to the right place. Should you be offended by the content, please complain to one of our administrators, not to Wikia. Most articles here are in a constant state of change, and that change can be YOU, if you continue." -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 04:24, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Simsilikesims is the hero!

I used to work for a corporation - their HR departments and marketing departments are heavily into political correctness. Also, by "general audiences", that means protecting the kids, which is an important factor, and the fact that this site should probably be teen-rated or above, is a potential source of trouble for us and wikia from angry parents who might complain that they were uninformed. Thus, my note that the site is not appropriate for under 12 was included. Still, I'm pleased they picked my selection. For now. I wonder if they will rotate the selection? -- Simsilikesims(♀UN)Talk here. 04:59, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Wowrly.

What!

No way, not on my watch they don't. Wikia is not going to damn censor us, if I have something to say about. Who gave Wikia the right to be such asses? God damn it, those damnedassholes are becoming as bad as the FCC. They're not going to censor me! NOT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS. ☭ ♂ Matthlock ☯ ☃ € ☭ 22:22, June 27, 2012 (UTC)